Abstract
The article analyzes in detail the assumptions and the proofs typical of the research field of the geometry of burning mirrors. It emphasizes the role of two propositions of the Archimedean Quadratura parabolae, never brought to bear on this subject, and of a complex system of projections reducing a sumptōma of a parabola to some specific linear lemmas. On the grounds of this case-study, the much-debated problem of the heuristic role of analysis is also discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Heiberg J.L. (1883) Zum Fragmentum mathematicum Bobiense. Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik (hist.-lit. Abth.) 28: 121–129
Hogendijk J.P. (1985) Diocles and the geometry of curved surfaces. Centaurus 28: 169–184
Jones A. (1987) On some borrowed and misunderstood problems in Greek Catoptrics. Centaurus 30: 1–17
Knorr W.R. (1983) The geometry of burning-mirrors in antiquity. Isis 74: 53–73
Sesiano J. (1988) Les miroirs ardents de Dioclès. Museum Helveticum 45: 193–202
Toomer, G.J. (ed.) (1976) Diocles, On burning mirrors. Springer, Berlin
Zeuthen H.G. (1886) Die Lehre von den Kegelschnitten im Altertum. A.F. Höst & Sohn, Kopenhagen
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Alexander Jones.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Acerbi, F. The geometry of burning mirrors in Greek antiquity. Analysis, heuristic, projections, lemmatic fragmentation. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 65, 471–497 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-010-0076-8
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-010-0076-8